User:Mediation4u/Christmas 2020 kindness proposal

Transcluded, for further redrafting, from here: Village pump (policy)

Has now been archived to archive 163...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_163#Increased_rules_on_articles_leading_to_overzealous_article_thinning_and_deletion



WP:KIND

Helpful routes for arbitration and education
If you put: help me on your page, then it means:


 * WP:KINDNESSCAMPAIGN   Dispute Resolution Improvement Project/Newsletter

Dispute resolution avenues: dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) - dispute resolution noticeboard request form. 15 noticeboards: WP:DRN, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee

Increased rules on articles leading to overzealous article thinning and deletion
I've been a Wikipedian for over 16 years, and I would like to comment here, that over time, many good editors have left due to exhaustion and frustration with what appears to be an ever increasing set of rules being enforced by an overzealous army of editors who seem driven by the unquenchable need to remove every bit of content that they deem unnecessary, non-notable, insignificant, or inadequately cited or sourced to degrees clearly not originally intended by the rules and guidelines. I would dare to say that Wikipedia has become a rather unfriendly place, where the police shoot first, and ask questions later. Sadly. --Thoric (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP has matured. Sixteen years ago, we were definitely much more maverick and open about what content we allowed but we've recognized that a lot of readers depend on us for quality research and summation, as well as trying to avoid the reputation of having 1000s of pages of Pokemon but very little on practical history. We've better focused on material that is backed by more reliable sources and less on "popular" topics which are better covered in other places. --M asem (t) 18:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you will have to give specific examples of the "increasing set of rules", the "overzealous army of editors" and the "unquenchable need to remove every bit of content." If you are just blowing of steam then so be it - everyone needs to do that from time to time but don't expect any big changes without examples of what needs to be changed. I will add, for the record, that the reference to "shooting first" would be out of line at the best of times but after the year we've lived through it is particularly vile. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to note that IMO the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident brought about the need for WP:RS and several other guidelines and policies that are part of WikiP today. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that Editors will move from editing articles that they have an interest in, to articles on practical history. The more likely scenario is they start off on Pokemon and move on to other things. Bits are cheap. Just have a flag saying that the article is not notable and let the user be able to exclude non notable articles. And let the project people by able to split them from their stats. AT the moment the many articles keep on being searched for and deleted. Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm reasonably certain that this is a reaction to SMAUG and particularly Articles for deletion/SMAUG (2nd nomination). Bald assertions of notability from an article's primary author are not unusual, nor is frustration at having an article one cares about nominated.  The difference between 16 years ago and now is that such assertions were often accepted at AfD and now AfD participants expect there to be some evidence to back up these assertions.  A MUD will always struggle with the notability criteria but that is why pop-culture topics have split off into their own Wikia universes. Indeed, there is |a wiki devoted entirely to MUD's and one could even create their own SMAUG wiki, if one wished. But  is correct that the culture has changed and it is harder to keep articles such as the SMAUG one on en:wiki.  That is by the general consensus of the participants in this community.  [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't thought about MUDs for years. I never used SMAUG (I was a Shattered Worlds fan). But SMAUG and Shattered worlds were used for AI research [Https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-12842-4&#x20;40 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-12842-4_40] Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) I agree that the "shoot ... ask" metaphor is misplaced; nobody dies here as a result of proper editing. Questions aren't asked because experience has unfortunately taught us that the majority of such questions go unanswered, and it adds a level of extra workflow complexity that we don't find palatable. It's much easier to revert something that is likely wrong or uncitable and let the promoter of it prove it. After all, restoration is only a click away. I'm not advocating blind reversion – a certain amount of finesse is required (and I believe, used). The fact that we are becoming more vigilant at removing trivia or otherwise unnecessary fluff, stuff that is uncited (and often uncitable), etc., is a  thing for the most part. Now, if we could just enforce WP:RAWDATA instead of supporting the recording of every poll or vote, goal or basket, pageant quarter-finalist, game show contestant, or minor supporting actor, etc., too much of which is never cited, verified, self-consistent, ... —[  Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 19:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously the articles, not the people, are the fatalities in this case, although I know for a fact that over the past decade, a significant percentage of original editors burnt out and departed. The problem isn't that some articles are "uncitable" in so much as becoming difficult to cite according to ever changing rules. Many "cited" articles have become "uncited" as previously acceptable sources were deemed unacceptable. --Thoric (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles that are deleted are not "fatalities." Considering the number of people who have died this year your continued use of such language is truly disgusting. BTW you have yet to provide examples of any "ever changing rules" that are causing a problem. Yes, sources can become unacceptable due to their actions not Wikipedia's guidelines. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure... keep attacking me personally because not only are you guys the Wikipedia police, you're also the language police. You guys are the very reason that the two Wikipedia founders ended working on entirely new spinoff projects. Let that sink in. "No small group of elites deserves the power to declare what is known for all of us." -- Dr. Larry Sanger --Thoric (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No one has attacked you personally even though you've leveled plenty of accusations and attacks. Seeing as how you have no desire to present evidence to act on, nor any concrete proposals to make perhaps you would be happier working on one of those spinoff projects. I've been here almost 16 years as well and still can't find any "small group of elites." Thus, your whinging on is unlikely to change anything. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I mentioned our maturity. That includes not only aspects like notability, but sourcing quality as well. We're less likely to accept primary source as principle sourcing for articles nowadays since companies and others have found ways to abuse WP to self-promote themselves with primary sources, for example. This thus causes some articles that we'd have accepted a decade ago to no longer be considered appropriate here. --M asem (t) 23:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that Wikipedia is held to higher standards than it was 16 years ago, and I understand the need to prevent self promotion, but things have gotten to the point where rules meant to prevent abuse are being used to slice some articles down to a stub, which then gets flagged as too small to have its own article, and gets deleted without allowing a redirect to a relevant parent article, and next the parent article ends up on the chopping block (am I even allowed to say chopping block here?) Over 250 articles are removed from Wikipedia daily, such that there is a site for the express purpose of archiving them (deletionpedia.org). There is a problem here. It's not just me. --Thoric (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any examples of how sourcing guidelines (Expanded or not over the last decade) have been misapplied, in the specific context that you're here about your own project being at AFD? SMAUG was never culled down to a stub. There were a few attempts once to redirect it back in 2016, a soft delete at AFD which was restored at your request (A COI refund is a little off, IMO), and then a subsequent renomination after the only improvement you made was a copyright violation. Otherwise the article is in the same state it was in 2015, which was mostly written by you. -- ferret (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I brought it back to work on it, then was told I couldn't work on it due to COI. Are you saying the renomination was due to the copyright issue? I misunderstood one of the WP:C-P concepts, and had permission to use the content, but I can reword it (if I'm even allowed to). Most edits by anyone other than me were removed and/or reverted. There used to be an entire "MUD Task Force" at WikiProject_Video_games/MUD but it's gone now, so who is even to edit articles such as this? Look -- MUDs are the historic predecessor to MMORPGs such as WoW. SMAUG earned itself a mention on Raph Koster's Online World Timeline of "significant events for the development of virtual worlds". The SMAUG codebase has been downloaded well over 100,000 times, and is used by over 5% of the MUDs listed on The Mud Connector. It's a piece of Internet history. It's non-commercial. It has many derivative works. --Thoric (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, so, no, you can't provide any examples of sourcing policy or notability policy being used "against" SMAUG, other than the AFD itself. It's pretty clear that the article hasn't been "attacked" or "purged" of content in any form. In fact, the most substantial removal of content in the article's history was you in 2005. The page has been nearly static for over a decade beyond minor tweaks or template syntax/merge type fixes. The article restoration and the copyright incident occurred in October. You made no further edits from that point to improve it, and the AFD nomination didn't come until December, and the COI warning after that, since I am familiar with ROD and SMAUG and recognized your name. I'm more than adequately familiar with MUDs and MU*s and their history, having ran several myself. -- ferret (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So a developer formerly used Wikipedia to promote his product and now comes back after a 10 hiatus of active engagement and complains that the entire project is fatally flawed because of an article about his MUD is being rightly nominated for deletion. Do I have those facts right? That's an awfully big claim to make based on one article in which you have a conflict of interest and which hasn't undergone anything like the set of alterations you ascribe. You haven't yet, despite multiple requests, provided a scintilla of evidence for your MUD's notability nor have you provided any sort of evidence for your complaints here. Do you really think this is going to be taken seriously or result in any action based solely on your evidence-free assertions? [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 00:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The SMAUG article is certainly not representative of my work as a wikipedian, as can be gleaned by my user page. I purposely avoided work on it so as not to appear to be self promoting. It's a piece of Internet gaming history. --Thoric (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Having read through the above, I'm not seeing any indication that this could lead to alterations of our longstanding notability and sourcing requirements, and VPP is not the place to coach an editor who doesn't understand them. This discussion should be closed. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think this discussion should be closed yet. It raises a couple of important points on motivation of wikipedian editors.  The criteria 16 years ago and for many years since have been strict.  The point being made is not solely about notability and sourcing.  This discussion could result in a new stage in the deletion process.  This could introduce the concept of prompting suggestions for improving articles from the people who are unhappy with articles, rather than jumping straight to deleting, merging or redirecting them.  Please let me know if this stage has been proposed before, and where, I would be grateful for a link.   This new stage would result in improvements to wikipedia, and more motivated contributors.  The point being raised is that the deletion process is thinning and reducing Wikipedia plus also losing valuable editors, forever.  Please could we address those two separate points and come to consensus conclusions before closing this valuable discussion, thanks.      Mediation4u  (chat)nb: editing is fun 18:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is already required and has been for eons. The Deletion Policy includes consideration of alternatives to deletion and nominators are expected to carry out exactly those types of checks before nominating. You may also find Perennial_proposals worth reading. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the relevant links. I did suspect that this topic had been discussed before and I see that many wikipedians have expressed in great detail that Wikipedia should not be limited by the disadvantages of a paper encyclopedia, here >> Deletion reform/Brainstorming.  There are calls for clear definitions of notability in that discussion.  It is a fine line between Wikipedia's integrity and gravitas on one side, and the appeal of Wikipedia's innate eccentricity on the other side of the coin.  Deletion without sufficient cause risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater and throwing out well-intentioned contributors too.   Mediation4u  (chat)nb: editing is fun 01:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For instance:
 * "Notability has been used by editors with an axe to grind. It is a way of suppressing useful information in order to give preference to a personal POV. Notability is too subjective. It hands a loaded gun to a child. Wikipedia is becoming increasingly crippled by the limiting view of some editors that it must model itself after paper encyclopediae, and mimic their limitations. The Notability criterion is one painful, destructive manifestation of that policy. --Aminorex"
 * On one hand Wikipedia is not a random collection of information and on the other hand Wikipedia's appeal for many is that editing it and reading it should be fun. If there are more links to prior discussions, then please feel free to gather the links here.  A compendium of prior consensus summaries may speed up the closing of this thread.   Mediation4u  (chat)nb: editing is fun 01:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's really nothing further to do in this thread. There is no true call to action or proposal. We have infrequent editors popping up in response to what I believe have been at least some offsite mentions to defend a particular topic of which the poster has an unambivalent conflict of interest. No one is rushing to deletion without sufficient cause. We have processes and procedures in place and they are operating just fine. Not a single person has mentioned how or why the process is supposedly failing in this instance, and the AFD has not even closed yet. So the complaint boils down to "how dare they even think about deleting my topic", which is simply a non-starter. -- ferret (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is very nearly inexplicable that you cherry-picked one editor's statements out of a discussion that was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping notability requirements and use it to suggest that there is some sort of active debate on the issue. "Many wikipedians have expressed in great detail that Wikipedia should not be limited by the disadvantages of a paper encyclopedia" is not exactly an untrue statement but many, many, many more have expressed that the "disadvantages of a paper encyclopedia" have nothing to do with notability requirements. There is a strong, lasting, and continuing consensus that we as a community have no interest in becoming a vehicle for promotional  or trivial articles. Notability is the bar that intentionally keeps those out and neither you nor the thread originator have yet expressed any reason why that should change.  You haven't even made a proposal for such a change. The idea that notability and AfD leads to "thinning" of the encyclopedia is belied by the actual facts at hand which show that we are at 6.2 million articles and growing, despite whatever gets removed through CfD, Prod's, and AfD.  [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur. You have summarised, above, my conflicted position.  I am sure there are other essays and debates on this topic.  I paste a second quote, for balance.


 * "Absolutely not. Removing the notability criterion means Wikipedia becomes an unusable morass, not an encyclopedia. Here are five practical problems with it, completely aside from the fact that an encyclopedia by definition is selective: Spamming, vanity articles, bids for fame, it would break categorisation and also the random article feature. -- Fubar Obfusco"


 * By way of explanation, I fell into the confirmation bias trap, which explains that a person sees the things they agree with when reading a discussion and they are blind to items they don't believe are true.   Seeing the balanced view requires an open mind. I also agree with your point that the discussion so far has generated a lot of heat and light, but nothing which moves the Wikipedia project forward.  So I have drafted a small positive proposal which I will add, below.  It is similar to Ferret's constructive approach to this issue.  Deeds, not words (Acta, non verba).    Mediation4u  (chat)nb: editing is fun 23:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Further, we have the WP:AFC and Drafts system in place that help editors get an idea early in article creation if the article has a chance to be sustainable with the newer criteria on sourcing and notability. --M asem (t) 18:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this is an interesting discussion and raises a question. Is there a way Wikipedia can capture knowledge that isn't covered by our traditional sources yet might be of interest to readers.  Is that knowledge "encyclopedic"?  I'll offer two automotive related examples.  The first might be an article like the one about the Sports_2000 amateur race car class.  This is clearly a special interest article.  As it stands the article has no sources.  I'm sure that could be improved but many of the best resources are likely to fail WP:RS.  Even some of the better sources about racing at the less than top tier are going to be iffy per our RS standards (as an example here is an article about a designer of one of the Sports 2000 cars [].  Techie/geekie details about the cars are often on blogs, forums and other largely self published sources.  I would find such content really interesting.  I would like to know that the Swift DB1 used rocker arm front suspension with dampers actuated via a pivot link.  I also get this doesn't rise to the same level of significance as many of our articles.  Still, I think Wikipedia would be a more interesting place if we could have some of this "content sourced to low quality sources".  Think of it something like Bloomberg vs Bloomberg Contributor.  In my view it would be nice if we could separate these into articles that are perhaps of interest to some readers but not sourced to the same standards as many articles.  I also understand such an allowance could easily be abused etc.  Still, I think it would make Wikipedia a richer resource.  Springee (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the situation around the "walled garden" of the mixed-martial arts area from several years back that WPians had to dismantle, the answer to this ("can WP cover topic areas not well covered by traditional sources") is "no". In our maturity we've moved away from accepting niche sources. The MMA is one example; demoting porn actors from NBIO is another, dealing with the COI-filled world of cryptocurrency reporting is yet another. The general notability guideline is there to try to set a minimum amount of coverage and sourcing for all topics so that no topic area has the freedom to use more niche coverage or the like to be more inclusive of what it includes; we have have some exceptions to that as agreed to globally, such as WP:NPROF for academics, and stuff like WP:OUTCOMES isn't readily challenged though not formally set. But in general, if a topic field is simply not covered in depth by good sources, and the sources that do exist for that field are considered problematic, we really can't develop that content. We can get as close as possible to guiding readers where to go next short of pointing them to Fandom, for example. --M asem (t) 20:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Concur with User:Ferret and User:Masem. I see no problem with strictly enforcing WP:V and WP:RS. With so many reliable sources easily discoverable through Google Books as well as public and private academic databases, it's getting easier every day to find reliable sources for even the most obscure factual assertions, such as the fact that the most common generic term for a law school in the United States is "school of law." I stumbled across that interesting fact while researching something completely different, and saved a copy of the relevant article so that I could add that fact to WP several months later. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

My proposal acknowledges that it is the hard work of deletionists which has kept Wikipedia at the high standard it is today, holding back the flood of Pokemon articles, etc. However I sincerely hope that incremental improvements to how this is achieved can be made.
 * Proposal

Proposal - amend the deletion criteria to include a main aim of any deletion discussion to be:
 * Do not lose the contributor, educate the contributor.
 * Education before castigation

This means include educational evidence and links, do not include unsubstantiated emotive arguments which intend to demotivate the contributor(s) into submission. Taking one example of attempting to dominate the opposition on the recent SMAUG deletion thread. I don't think weight should be given to the accusation of meatpuppetry. Perhaps that accuser did a check, using the automated tools, and found no sock puppets were on that page. If so, then please post that evidence. That would be objective, useful, and educational for newbies. Then all those in the discussion know that there are no sock puppets. By contrast, jumping to a "meatpuppet" claim,  with no evidence provided of that, just lowers the tone of the debate in an adversarial manner. With no evidence of sock puppets, then please conclude that many people independently hold a view which is different from your own. This would be more rational than seeing gangs of meatpuppets acting in concert around every corner.
 * Reason #1  Education

As more of the project falls into disrepair, with no active editors, then those areas become ripe for deletion too. Hence the vicious circle of thinning and, in the long run, losing Wikipedia's raison d'etre. No fun will mean no new editors. No new Wikipedians fighting the vandalism will mean Wikipedia is likely to exponentially implode. Anecdotally, I see more vandalism sticking now than 10 years ago. Get on over to WP:CVU and WP:SVT if you have some spare time.
 * Reason #2 Vicious circle


 * Suggested approach #1
 * Previous debate links instead of divisive and abrasive exchanges

If the point being made in the argument has been discussed before, and ideally has a summary paragraph which concludes the debate, then always furnish a link to that debate. Instead of an aggressive assertion, show the contributor the links to the actual policy and also to previous debates on that point where the policy was decided. So in this case, on notability, it allows the contributor to see the discussion has been held before. Taking as an example, in the case of the SMAUG deletion discussion, with a full understanding of notability criteria, we can find an appropriately notable page on which to merge the valuable content.


 * Suggested approach #2
 * Face to face test.

For instance, imagine you are at a cafe/diner/breakfast table /telephone/video recording. When making a point in a deletion debate - would you say that same statement,  in that way, to someone who is sitting across the table from you? On the phone? In a video post, in your own name, on public YouTube? Hold up what you are about to say and imagine it in those situations. As well as the onus on being kind to newbies, there is also a case to be made on thinking before writing anything negative, to anyone, not just newbies. Flame wars are an inevitable consequence of written exchanges in anonymous forums, email chains, etc. The written word can be misinterpreted very easily. Imagine a contributor arrives enthusiastically to become famous by writing an article about themselves, then they could be welcomed in and encouraged to find someone who is famous already and write an article about them instead. - a very different outcome to the current atmosphere.Other outcomes could include pointing them to Wikihow / Fandom / other internet wiki WP:OTHERWIKIS or blog more suited to their specific article.

Consequences

Unfortunately some appear to hold a view that Flame wars should not be taken too seriously. It is these people who need to realise that the  consequence of this abrasive level of debate will be the death of the Wikipedia project. While it may seem a speedy and efficient use of time to stamp someone's views firmly into the ground, the project will die by a thousand cuts. There are other times in history when man's cruelty to man has been unbelievable. Let's try to turn the ship around and stop Wikipedia being one of them.

There is a turning point in many Wikipedians' trajectory of contributions when they leave the project, disillusioned.

That disenchanted, experienced, contributor will also have an impact on others they know. Probably for the rest of their life.

Word of mouth is a powerful way to spread a message. Bad news travels much faster and much further than positive information.

---  luckily it is the season of goodwill, so with peace on earth as the goal uppermost in people's minds, I hope the spirit of this proposal makes its way in some form to the right places as advice and guidance for deletionists. Mediation4u (chat)nb: editing is fun 10:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If anyone has examples of previous similar suggestions, please provide some links in the box, below. Thanks very much.


 * WP:KINDNESSCAMPAIGN   Dispute Resolution Improvement Project/Newsletter

Dispute resolution avenues: dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) - dispute resolution noticeboard request form. 15 noticeboards: WP:DRN, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee


 * Is anyone keen on the proposal above, in theory? If so, please mark your ~ sign, below.
 * Any support is much appreciated. Thanks.    Mediation4u  (chat)nb: editing is fun 18:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Support --Thoric (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal - kindmas
Revised proposal: Create a WP:RFC To publish guidance for deletionists during an annual season of good will.

It has now been 13 days since my proposal and there has been very little support for the full proposal, above. For the reasons below I have revised the proposal to only apply for a specific, annual, period during the year.

A summary of the advice to be posted annually. This for guidance in article deletion debates during a season of good will.


 * Season of good will announced


 * Education before castigation
 * Do not lose the contributor, educate the contributor.
 * Previous debate links instead of divisive and abrasive exchanges.
 * Face to face test.
 * Be bold in editing, not in attacking.

The paragraphs in the section above give detailed explanations of these five bullet point guidelines, the background reasons and the consequences if they are not followed.

REASON FOR REVISING THE PROPOSAL

My reason for revising this proposal is that no independent Wikipedian has voted for my proposal so I must assume everyone in the two associated discussion threads are content with carrying out future exchanges in the same robust manner, due to expediency. So I have amended the proposal to make a WP:RFC for the face-to-face test and a reduction in slap down debate to be announced every December on deletionists forums, backlog drives and perhaps even a link posted on a few user pages. This cease fire hiatus will be during an advent season of goodwill. Perhaps that calm time is a good reason for abrasive deletionists to take a fortnight off and have a well deserved rest. Then kindness can prevail for that period, ready for hostilities to resume after the season of goodwill is over. Mediation4u (chat)nb: editing is fun 08:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do not personally believe that this proposal serves a real purpose, as it seems like the proposal is just to spread WikiLove. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 18:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you are right, in that the proposal above could be discussed further on WP:Wikilove forums. Luckily your valid point has inspired more constructive, positive steps to address the root causes in deletion debates.  A similar regular review during a ceasefire period of wiki-kindness, (being kind to all, as well as the newbies).  This could be during winterval, Christmas, kindmas, call it what you will.  At that point, step back and see if more of the approaches below could be suggested. i.e., continuing to view the deletion process improvements in the same vein.  A regular review could reduce or eliminate divisiveness wherever the inherent battlegrounds are found.    Mediation4u  (chat)nb: editing is fun 15:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposals by Wakelamp - positive steps

 * An Alternate Proposal.

Primary schools - our children are our future
I went through the Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_January_1 and reviewed https://deletionpedia.org/en/Main_Page. The request for deletion pages are stressful, so hats off to the people who do it. Personally, I would never create a page
 * Go with the Desire Paths. Change the notability guidelines to match up with what people are looking for. Search deletionpedia shows 20 % of the deletions are to do with schools . Primary Schools are not notable. Change it so kids can have their school having a page.
 * Change the creation of wiki pages process to encourage the user to find out information first, but have the option to continue. So you want to create a page about a soccer player ? Have they played 50 games ?

MOTIVATIONAL PROOF: link to lots of previous stats of users leaving the project

 * Get some statistics - users leaving after having their page deleted, which pages are most searched for, but don't exist
 * Change the disambiguation process to allow a simple to link to a section. I think you can do it, but I have never seen it done Smaug_(disambiguation which started this thread I think has this issue
 * Change the wording on Article for Deletion to article for review and possible deletion. It also refers to both the deletion policy and a guide to deletion. Choose one

KINDER: I want to apologize and will see myself out

 * Change the approach on AfD. Its prosecutorial. A user can not canvas for support from the project page. from January 1st - see Branch_Insurance  "ZXVZ, I want to apologize and will see myself out." IComparison_of_Remote_Music_Performance_Software "I am afraid to post here, as I am unfamiliar with your process.

SIMPLER: I am afraid to post here, as I am unfamiliar with your process

 * Make the procedure simpler, so that a new editor can understand it Deletion_process. Allow the user to merge it with other articles. At the moment, the creator of the page has to wait. "Even if the article is ultimately deleted, you can ask the closing administrator for a copy of the material to reuse, and the administrator can also advise you on any further steps that you may need to perform in order to reuse the content."
 * Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with all of the thoughts above. Many thanks for this constructive review.   Mediation4u  (chat)nb: editing is fun 15:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)